Normalised Impact Factor

Sen, B. K.

doi:10.1108/eb026901

Cited by 47 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scholars such as Sen (1992), Marshakova-Shaikevich (1996), and Pudovkin and Garfield (2004) attempted to develop better research performance measures (SnIF, MnIF, rnIF, etc. ) to overcome the limitations of Journal IF analyses, but these indicators still fail to consider the intrinsic differences in characteristics between research areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was Sen (1992) who first attempted to correct for the deviation of Journal IF between research areas. Sen suggested the following normalization: SnIF j = IF j / maxIF × 10, where IF j is the SCI IF for a journal j and maxIF is the maximal IF value for the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category to which a journal j belongs.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to overcome the difficulties of comparing Journal IF across different specialties, Sen (1992) and Marshakova-Shaikevich (1996) suggested using a normalized IF. However, these normalizations are not completely satisfactory, as they use either the maximal Journal IF or a few of the highest Journal IFs in each academic field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Developing the New Qualitative Measurement Indicator and its Application in Scientific Papers

2013

CUBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces a new qualitative measurement indicator, the Relatively Rank-normalized Impact Factor (R 2 nIF) that can overcome drawbacks of the existing qualitative indicators (Journal IF, normalized IF). The qualities of SCI papers in G7 and BRICs are investigated using this indicator. The result of the R 2 nIF analysis of those countries shows that the US produces not only the largest quantity but also the best quality of SCI papers. The US is the research leader in both "basic science" and "bio-science". The UK also shows high quality in almost all areas, even superior to the US in some research areas such as pharmacology and toxicology, molecular biology and genetics, etc.. Overall the qualitative status of scientific papers in all BRIC countries are not yet up to par, although they have achieved a quantitative expansion of publications. However in "engineering" China is the second only to the US in journal quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing the New Qualitative Measurement Indicator and its Application in Scientific Papers

2013

CUBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the first references on classical normalization one can findMurugesan and Moravcsik (1978),Schubert and Braun (1986),Sen (1992) andCzapski (1997) on rank approaches. See alsoVinkler (2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor

Zitt

2011

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new family of citation normalization methods appeared recently, in addition to the classical methods of ''cited-side'' normalization and the iterative measures of intellectual influence in the wake of Pinski and Narin influence weights. These methods have a quite global scope in citation analysis but were first applied to the journal impact, in the experimental Audience Factor (AF) and the Scopus Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). Analyzing some properties of the Garfield's Journal Impact Factor, this note highlights the rationale of citing-side (or source-level, fractional citation, ex ante) normalization.

show abstract

“…In fact, when we apply citation analysis to research evaluation, we are faced with difficulties due to the differences in citation levels in different branches of science. 17 In the multidisciplinary science of oncology, the differences in citation frequency are apparent when the IF of journals in different categories are compared: for example, the average IF value of the top ten joumals in immunology is 12.888; in ontology: 6.369; in surgery 2.656.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of publication quality in a Cancer Research Institute

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents an experimental method for the evaluation of scientific papers in the field of ontology and related disciplines developed at the National Institute for Cancer Research (IST), Genoa, Italy. The method is based on the partitioning of categories of the Science Citation IndexJournal Citation Reports (SCI-JCR) into deciles, thus normalizing Impact Factor (IF), in order to guage the quality of the productivity. A second parameter related to the number of staff of each department co-authoring a given paper has been introduced for the allocation of Institute funding. The following studies have been carried to compare the assigned score and the average number of citations of papers published by a research group. The identification of correctives is in progress. The method provides a basis for a possible method to judge the quality of publications from within a research organization, and should be reproducible independently of the disciplines considered.

show abstract

Normalised Impact Factor

Cited by 47 publications

References 1 publication

Developing the New Qualitative Measurement Indicator and its Application in Scientific Papers

Developing the New Qualitative Measurement Indicator and its Application in Scientific Papers

Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor

Analysis of publication quality in a Cancer Research Institute

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About